Also, while I can see various synthetic tires being an issue, is vulcanized natural rubber actually a problem? It’s starting off as tiny particles which should degrade fairly quickly.
The finished product isn’t considered toxic, but some individual ingredients are, including heavy metals like cadmium and lead, and high aromatic oils (more commonly known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs)
So, presumably non synthetic tires are actually fine. Though, it’s not clear if that was the intent of the article.
It's the brake disc. Some rust on the surface is not a big problem, but if it starts digging in to the metal mass it will cause reduced brake capacity. In Europe a car with lots of rust on the brake disc will not be certified for use (mandatory checkup every two years) until the brake discs have been replaced.
Regenerative brakes translate kinetic energy into stored potential energy, with marginal friction and resistive losses. Friction brakes translate 100% of the kinetic energy into waste heat, through abrasion.
While it's true that regenerative brakes are not frictionless, none that I'm aware of rely on friction. One could imagine using a clutch to controllably wind/unwind a spring, for example, but auto manufacturers aren't rinky-dink steampunkers and even so you'd still do everything you could to minimize clutch slippage.
This thread started when someone said ‘both brakes and tyres emit pollution’. The point was the brakes don’t when they’re regenerative. I’m sure the tyres still do. But that wasn’t what the thread was about.
This variable is a constant between both types of brakes. How is this relevant when comparing brakes? They both need it, one puts energy into a battery, the other one just heats up air due to the friction created by the system.